LexTHE STATE OF GOA & ANR. versus NAMITA TRIPATHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 341 : 2025 INSC 306 The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi (Criminal Appeal No. 1060 of 2025) 03 March 2025 [B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) had issued process to the respondent pursuant to the complaint filed by the appellants alleging violation by the respondent of the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 and thereby committing offences punishable u/s.92 thereof. However, the High Court had quashed the said order of the JMFC. Was the High Court justified in quashing the process issued. Headnotes† Factories Act, 1948 – ss.2(k), 2(m), 92 – Goa Factories Rules, 1985 – rr.3,4,6 – An inspection was conducted in the premises of the respondent wherein the business of Professional Laundry Service was carried on, it was found that the respondent did not possess factory approved plans – Further, the premises were being used as a factory without obtaining a valid factory licence – A complaint was filed – The JMFC issued summons to respondents – However, the High Court by the impugned order quashed the order issuing process – Correctness: Held: There is no doubt that the business of laundry carried on by the respondent involved cleaning and washing of clothes including dry cleaning – Admittedly, more than 9 workers were employed in the centralized processing unit and also used the aid of power – The Act of 1948 defines “manufacturing process” and clearly “washing, cleaning” and the activities carried out by the respondent with a view to its use, delivery or disposal are squarely attracted – The contention of the respondent that dry * Author 342 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports cleaning does not make any product usable, saleable or worthy of transport, delivery or disposal is rejected – “Manufacturing process” has been defined to mean any process for washing or cleaning with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal – The linen deposited with the launderer is, after washing and cleaning, delivered to the customer for use – The ingredients of the section are fully satisfied – There is nothing in the Act of 1948, which is repugnant in the subject or context, constraining to jettison the definition – Hence, this Court rejects the findings of the High Court and hold that the activity carried out which on facts is not disputed is clearly covered by the definition of “manufacturing process” u/s.2(k) which, in turn, would bring the premises in question of the respondent under the definition of “factory” u/s.2(m) – If that were so, the complaint lodged against the respondent could not have been quashed – The consequence would be that the complaint filed by the appellants along with the order issuing process of 04.12.2019 would stand restored. [Paras 33, 42, 49] Factories Act, 1948 – ss.2(k), 2(m) – Statutory definitions – discussed. [Paras 15- 17] Factories Act, 1948 – Object and reasons – discussed. [Paras 18-20] Case Law Cited Balwant Rai Saluja & Anr. v. Air India Ltd. & Ors. [2014] 14 SCR 1512 : (2014) 9 SCC 407; S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat & Anr. [2001] Supp. 2 SCR 140 : (2001) 7 SCC 659; Works Manager, Central Railway Workshop, Jhansi v. Vishwanath & Ors. [1970] 2 SCR 726 : (1969) 3 SCC 95; Allahabad Bank & Anr. v. All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association [2010] 2 SCR 162 : (2010) 2 SCC 44; Lanco Anpara Power Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2016] 5 SCR 731 : (2016) 10 SCC 329; Jeewanlal Ltd. & Ors. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act & Ors. [1985] 1 SCR 664 : (1984) 4 SCC 356; Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors. [2001] Supp. 2 SCR 343 : (2001) 7 SCC 1 – relied on. Crane Betel Nut Powder Works v. Commr. of Customs & Central Excise, Tirupathi & Anr. [2007] 4 SCR 109 : (2007) 4 SCC 155; [2025] 3 S.C.R. 343 The State of Goa & Anr. v. Namita Tripathi Kores India Ltd., Chennai v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai [2004] Supp. 6 SCR 320 : (2005) 1 SCC 385; Independent Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Girish Sriram Juneja & Ors., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 181; Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Triplex Dry Cleaners and Others (1998) 1 SCC 196; J.P. Lights India v. Regional Director E.S.I. Corporation, Bangalore, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1271 – referred to. Super Cleaners v. Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2006 SCC OnLine Bom 1660; Employees’ State Insurance Corporation,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.